Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money in the utility function

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 00:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Money in the utility function[edit]

The article content does not match the title, and appears entirely redundant with Marginalism. RandomP 16:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've reordered the article a bit so that it reflects the title. I'm voting keep as it no longer reflects the specific AfD concerns for this nomination. Some fact checking is needed and if there are no sources I think it could go for a second AfD. JASpencer 07:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 03:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It still is rather weaselly, and looks like original research to me. The title also is still not really descriptive of the article contents, and might go better as marginal utility of money. These problems might be fixable, though: if we could find an economist making the specific claim that money does not follow the rule of diminishing marginal utility, I'd be happy to switch to keep. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for want of sources. Gazpacho 17:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless the problems listed above are fixed. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- the theories are well-known in economics circles, but should be more thoroughly cited in the article. Another re-write could kick me to Keep
Weak delete as sourcing might change my mind, Tewfik^Talk 02:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and potentially original research. I certainly never heard/read of anyone teaching this theory in my economics or game theory courses, and I certainly did hear the opposite. GRBerry 03:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still an unsourced, rambling essay. ~ trialsanderrors 23:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.